<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Kabir Khan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kabir.khan@jboss.com" target="_blank">kabir.khan@jboss.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">> If it is limited to the kernel (including relevant JDK bits), then there are no issues with ensuring different feature pack maintainers are doing this, no need to combine lists from different parts of the build, no worries about ensuring only those bits relevant to what the user is actually running are loaded, etc. Those things are the “painful to administer part”. They might very well be worth it but data should demonstrate that.<br>
</span>If it turns out to be worth it, the feature pack generation stuff could be enhanced to generate the list for each config. Perhaps only if doing -Prelease so we don't slow down everybody's builds while developing</blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I think that only core stuff should need this, as there is where most of contention for class loading is.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">As all extension need classes from core it is most contested.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">So I think if we go with this, jdk + core would be the yield best work / benefit results<br><br>--<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">tomaz<br></div></div>